Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination ('Incluye paginación'), which is a behavioral trait, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, result ordering, or potential volume of results. The pagination mention is somewhat redundant given the limit/offset parameters, but it still adds some behavioral context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main action, optional filters, and pagination. No wasted words; every piece of information is relevant and necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits any mention of how results are returned (e.g., full objects vs. summaries), default sort order, or how this tool interacts with siblings like buscar_disponibilidad. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds only a high-level grouping ('ubicación, capacidad y características') that roughly maps to the parameters, but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('propiedades vacacionales disponibles'), making it clear this is a listing tool for available vacation properties with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like obtener_detalles_propiedad (specific property details) and buscar_disponibilidad (availability search) by implying a broad list operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this to list all available properties, with optional filters for location, capacity, and features. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings that an agent can infer when to use it. However, it stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.